“Regret” and “Shame”

Published:Zvezda, No. 21, May 7, 1911.

      Signed:V. Ilyin.

      Published according to theZvezdatext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[1974],

      Moscow,Volume 17,

      pages189-194.Translated:Dora CoxTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Everycrisis reveals the real nature of phenomena or
processes, sweeps away the superficial, the trivial, the external, and
demonstrates the more profound fundamentals of what is taking place. Take,
for instance, the most common and least complicated of crises in the sphere
of economic phenomena, a strike. Nothing serves to reveal more clearly the
actual relationships between classes, the real nature of contemporary
society, the fact that the vast majority of the population has to submit to
the power ofhunger, and that the propertied minority resorts to
organised violence in order to maintain its rule. Take commercial and
industrial crises. Nothing refutes so glaringly the various speeches of the
champions and apostles of “harmony of interests”, nothing reveals so
vividly and so fully the entire mechanism of the contemporary, capitalist
system, the “anarchy of production”, the disunity of the producers and
the struggle of each against all and of all against each. Take, lastly,
such a crisis as war. All the political and social institutions are, tested
and verified “by fire and sword”. The strength or weakness of the
institutions and social system of every nation are determined by the
outcome of the war and its consequences. The essential nature of
international relations under capitalism—the open robbery of the
weaker—is fully and clearly exposed by war.

Thesignificance of our notorious “parliamentary” crisis lies also in
its revelation of thedeep-rootedcontradictions of the entire
social and political system of Russia. Most of those participating in and
acting out this crisis are, unfortunately, not attemptingto
explainit, to indicate its real causes and real significance but are
doing their best to obscure it by words, words and more words—some of
themare doing so deliberately, others because of their warped judgement or in
deference to routine and tradition. The “big day” in the Third Duma,
April 27, the day of the debate with Stolypin, was a big day of
“parliamentary” phrase-mongering. But, despite the inordinate torrents of
verbiage let loose by Stolypin himself and by his friends and opponents,
they were unableto hidethe essence of the matter. And the more
the daily press tries to distract the attention of its readers by harping
on liberal phrases, details and juridical formalities, the more appropriate
it is to review again the picture of the crisis which was revealed on
April 27.

Thekeynote of Stolypin’s speech was defence of the “rights of the
Crown” from any “derogation”. “The significance of Article 87,” said
Stolypin, “is that it defines the rights of the Grown, and it cannot be
departed from without creating an undesirable precedent.” Stolypin objects
to the attempts “to discredit the right of the supreme authority to invoke
Article 87 in an emergency such as had arisen before the prorogation of the
Chambers”. “This right,” he said, “is incontrovertible; it is based on,
and rooted in, the conditions of life itself.” “Any other interpretation
of this right is inacceptable,” he went on to say; “it would violate the
meaning and sense of the law, it would reduce to naught the Monarch’s right
to issue emergency decrees.”

Allthis is very clear, and all this is not mere words. The question is
stated in cynically “realistic” terms. The Grown and attempts at its
derogation.... If a dispute arises as to who is ultimately to interpret the
meaning of the law, then force decides the issue. All this is very clear,
and is not mere words.

Onthe other hand, Maklakov’s “ardent, fervent, impassioned, and
sincere” reproaches were nothing but mere words, juggling, juridical
fictions. “It was with a feeling of pro found regret and great shame”
(report inRech, April 28, p. 4) that he had heard certain
references to the Crown. Maklakov, who spoke on behalf of the entire
so-called “constitutional Centre” (i.e., on behalf of the Cadets and
Octobrists), defended the usual fiction of the monarchy being
constitutional. But the “defence”, voiced by the Cadets, or by the Cadets
and the Octobrists, consisted of hollow phrase mongering. What has it to do
with regret and shame whenit is a question of force? The bourgeoisie, who would like to have a
constitution, regret the fact that the Crown refuses to grant a
constitution, and is “ashamed” of this. The Crown is “ashamed” to have
anyone impose a constitution on it, regards it as “derogation” and
“regrets” any and all interpretation of any law that might be intended to
“derogate”.

Herewe have two sides, and two interpretations of the law. Regrets and
shame on both sides, with the only difference that one side does nothing
elsebut“regret” and be “ashamed”; whereas the other sidesays nothingeither about regretting or about being ashamed—it
says only that derogation is “unacceptable”.

Surelyit is obvious that the ones to be “ashamed” of this state of
affairs, the ones to be ashamed of their impotence, should be the
Maklakovs, should be the whole of our Cadet and Octobrist bourgeoisie. The
spokesman of the Council of the United Nobility is cynical about the crisis
he cynically engineered, he hurls defiance and draws his sword. And the
liberal bourgeoisie, like a street-trader who has been scared out of his
wits by a police officer, shrinks back in awe, muttering: I regret, I am
ashamed to ... be treated in this manner!

“Isay,” Maklakov vowed, “that I am a better constitutionalist than
the Chairman of the Council of Ministers [I can imagine how Stolypin
inwardly, and in the privacy of his home, laughed at these words; the
point, my dear sir, is not whether one proclaims oneself a
constitutionalist, butwho possesses the powerto determine
whether a constitution shall exist, and what kind of constitution it shall
be!], but for all that I am no less a monarchist than he. [Stolypin smiles
even more contentedly, so that’s the kind of a fellow he is—starts off by
uttering threats, and winds up by offering regrets! He is a great warrior,
this Maklakov!] I consider it lunacy to create a monarchy where it has no
roots, but just as much lunacy to renounce it where its historical roots
are strong.”

Havingfirst uttered some threats, and then offered his regrets, he now
begins to cite argumentsin favourof Stolypin. Oh, magnificent
parliamentarian of the liberals! Oh, incomparable leader of the
“constitutional” (lucus a nonlucendo[1]–“constitutional”

though there is no constitution) Centre, of the Cadet and Octobrist Centre!

“TheChairman of the Council of Ministers,” thunders our tribune of
“people’s freedom” (read, of the historical slavery of our people), “may
still remain in power; he will hold on to it both because of fear of the
revolution which is being engineered by his own agents (shouts from the
benches on the right: “Shame!”,tumult) ... and because of
the danger of creating a precedent!”

Itis a tale about how Ivan Ivanovich cried “shame” upon Ivan
Nikiforovich, and Ivan Nikiforovich cried “shame” upon Ivan

Ivanovich.[2]“It’s a shame not to observe the common standards of
constitutional procedure,” Ivan Ivanovich says to Ivan
Nikiforovich. “It’s a shame to threaten a revolution, which you yourself
fear, in which you don’t believe, and which you don’t help,” Ivan
Nikiforovich says to Ivan Ivanovich.

Well,reader, who do you think had the better of that argument?

Therepresentative of the “constitutional Centre”, Lvov the First,
spoke after Gegechkori who had quite correctly explained that the liberal
presswronglyrepresents the crisis as being of a
“constitutional” nature, that the Cadets “have, through their spokesmen,
supported the criminal illusion about a constitutional Centre”, and that a
constitution needs a certain movement, which is still lacking. (Gegechkori
made one awkward slip at the end when he mentioned “anarchy”—that was
not the word he should have used.)

Tojudge by the speech of Lvov the First, it seemed at one time that
even some of the landowners had learned a thing or two from Gegechkori’s
explanations. “All that has happened,” said Lvov the First, “goes to
show indeed that we have no Constitution, and we have no parliamentary
system; but neither have we any fundamental laws and, in general, any
organised system [that’s a good one! And what about the existence of the
landowners—doesn’t that mean that there is an organised landowners’
system? You let yourtongues run away with you, gentlemen of the “constitutional
Centre”]—there is only arbitrary rule [that is precisely one of the
fundamental and most essential features of the organised landowner system]
and demagogy.”

Judgingby the interpretation of the “progressive” land lord Nikolai
Nikolayevich Lvov the First, demagogy stands for something highly
unpleasant. Listen further:

“Andthe men who are now in office employ this demagogy in order to
enhance their own influence and their own power. But others, too, will make
use of this demagogy—those who want to seize power [brr ... what an
odious and immoral desire! Far be it from the Russian liberal bourgeois to
entertain such a desire. It is only in the decadent West that the immoral
bourgeoisie tries to seize power, and has even invented the unnatural
doctrine that only the bourgeoisie in power can safeguard a bourgeois
constitution. We, the Russian liberals, have been enlightened by the moral
and idealist sermons of Struve, Berdayev and Co. and we are, therefore, of
the opinion that power must remain in the hands of the Tolmachovs, whereas
the Maklakovs ought to be engaged in writing instructions for the truly
constitutional application of that power]... those who are more proficient
in wielding the instrument of demagogy. Fear this demagogy, for everything
will be sacrificed to it: your dignity, your possessions, your honour, and
Russia’s civic system.

The“progressist” Nikolai Nikolayevich Lvov the First talks sense. He
is even fairly clear when he refers to “possessions”. For instance, if
yesterday a landowner owned 10,000 dessiatines, and today he is left with
only 50 dessiatines, it means that 9,950 dessiatines have been
“sacrificed” to “demagogy”. That is clear. That is not mere words. But
matters are not so clear when he refers to “dignity” and “honour”. Does
our progressist imply that a landlord can be a man of “dignity” and
“honour” only when he owns 10,000 dessiatines, and that he is bound to
lose both if he loses 9,950 of his dessiatines? Or does Lvov the First
imply that dignity and honour stand to be sacrificed if the dessiatines do
not fetch a fair price—say, 500 rubles a dessiatine?

Onthe subject of “Russia’s civic system” the “progressist” Lvov
the First is somewhat at sea. If it is true, as he said,that we have neither a constitution, nor a parliamentary system, nor
fundamental laws, that means that we have no civic system either, and what
doesn’t exist, cannot be sacrificed. If what Lvov the First said is true
this means that our civic system has been sacrificed to our “organised
[landowner] system”. Wasn’t this a slip of the tongue on the part of our
“progressist”? Didn’t he mean to say that our organised landowner system
would be sacrificed to Russia’s civic system? Didn’t he imply that it would
be demagogy if events were to take such a hypothetical course?  When he
said—“fear this demagogy”—didn’t he imply that the majority of the
Third Duma ought to fear that hypothetical course of events?

Itis a tale about how Ivan Ivanovich accused Ivan Nikiforovich of
demagogy, and Ivan Nikiforovich accused Ivan Ivanovich of the same thing:
“You are a demagogue,” said Ivan Ivanovich to Ivan Nikiforovich,
“because you are In office and you are using it to enhance your own
influence and your own power, while at the same time pretending to serve
the national interests of the population.” “No,” said Ivan Nikiforovich
to Ivan Ivanovich, “you are a demagogue, because you are shouting at the
top of your voice and in a public place, that all we have is arbitrary
rule, and that we have neither a constitution nor fundamental laws; more
over you are hinting rather impolitely at some sort of sacrifice of our
possessions.”

Wedo not know which of them proved, in the long run, that the other
was a demagogue. But we do know that when thieves fall out true men come
into their own.

[1]Anuntranslatable Latin pun: its meaning is clear from the
context. (Literally “a grove, but not giving light”;lucus—a
grove,lucere—to give light.)—Ed.

[2]IvanIvanovichandIvan Nikiforovich—characters in
Gogol’sTale of How Ivan Ivanovich Quarrelled with Ivan
Nikiforovich.